enhanced interrogation techniques "vs" torture

[Sacul15]

Anybody read Thomas Sowell's column? He had a few good points on the subject recently.

Oh, and Mr. Happy you might want to take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009. To say that terrorism isn't a threat is extremely naive and insensitive. The only reason these attacks are local and usually on a small scale is because the countries they threaten are placing military pressure on those areas. The day we let up is the day they will start to plan another 9/11, and they will succeed.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Nobody likes it to torture people there! You really believe that?

Do you believe that all the waterboarders are sadists? You really believe that?

[RefaelBA]

Was it why they abused those prisoners (terrorists) in that prison? Just to do the best for the nation? You seem to know every agent, and the whole secret service and army, is like an angel. They only do the best for the nation. Nobody likes it to torture people there! You really believe that?

The only real benefit of torture that I can think of is creating some deterrence.

[Chipmunk]

If waterboarding is just 'uncomfortable' then why would terrorists who would give their life to a cause that means so much to them give up the information for something that's isn't seen as torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

I know it's wikipedia but still:

"The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death."

Torture compared to other methods is inherently flawed. What happens if they come across someone they suspect, torture and get false information only to find that the suspect didn't even know anything. America has a ton of cash at its disposal for the CIA and terrorists are trained in hidden camps by outcasts. Who has the upper hand? I think the issue is that you can't always be sure, innocent people wont get hurt.

[dragonfliet]

but we lose credibility as a nation and we bolster the support of terrorist organizations.

You can't lose credibility as a nation, you can lose credibility as an individual, a collective, an organization even, but maligning an entire nation based on the actions of a few is folly. I'm not saying that people still don't see it that way, they do; but anyone claiming to be a reasonable, freethinking individual cannot look at it that way.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between nation and the individuals that populate a nation. Not every American loses their individual credibility because of the actions of the government, but when the government chooses such actions as torture, then the American Government loses its credibility. And since the people are attacking American People in order to hurt the American Government, then it's a lose/lose situation.

~Jason

[Chipmunk]

I reckon a nation can lose credibility. The middle east gets a raw deal over here in the UK and I can only image it's worse in America. If you asked most people, they would have a negative view of the people of Iraq and Iran etc.

I understand where torture would seem a good choice, to stop something which could potentially hurt alot of people. We don't murder people who are a risk to society because we are above that. I think the same applies here. Surely in all our understanding of the mind and spying techniques there's much more apt methods.

[Mr. Happy]

Anybody read Thomas Sowell's column? He had a few good points on the subject recently.

Oh, and Mr. Happy you might want to take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009. To say that terrorism isn't a threat is extremely naive and insensitive. The only reason these attacks are local and usually on a small scale is because the countries they threaten are placing military pressure on those areas. The day we let up is the day they will start to plan another 9/11, and they will succeed.

It's not naive and I don't care if you think it's insensitive. Yes, it is sad for those who lose their lives, but it's statistically irrelevant in the United States. As I said, if this was Israel or Iraq we would need to do something about it, but we have sufficient practices in place without torture such that even if an attack like 9/11 happened again I would still consider our government as having succeeded.

Terrorist groups are basically gangs, especially in other countries. At least that's how I think of it. We don't bomb and torture gangs, we hunt them down with POLICE and then put them in JAIL and then they kill EACH OTHER. This is a sufficient way to deal with gangs, and it's a sufficient way to deal with terrorists.

It's like when they banned M-80's because a few stupid kids blew their hands off. Sad for those families, but I don't think that's enough for such drastic action. Yes, terrorism is a threat, but it's a minor threat. Of course that's just my opinion.

[Jeeves]

I find it laughable that some people, see fit to justify the actions of the Bush administration concerning their actions in the middle east, and the opinionated self-riteous fools who advocate the grotesque notion that torture is deemed acceptable within modern society. It is in fact rather perplexing
to me personally that although torture is condemned in America under Title 18 of the USC, it was still acknowledged as acceptable by the governement to commit these acts on supposed Jihadist Terrorists, which is surely tantamount to hypocracy given that it's illegal in the 'Land of the free' ?.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

opinionated self-riteous fools

Opinionated, yes, but you are also by writing this. Self-righteous? Perhaps. Fools? Not at all. Please dissent based on evidence not by rhetoric.

I hear so much talk of "supposed terrorists" or "suspected terrorists," but it's not like the army just arrested people at random. The detainees are the sort that surrendered or were caught unready in real battles between the army and insurgency, or taken from confirmed terrorist hideouts. Think of it this way, no soldier wants to stay there for too long. They wouldn't risk detaining people for the sake of appearances, as the true terrorists would get away. They want the true criminals detained, because their information or very capture could thwart possible attacks and destroy their organizations.

And you should remember, in case you didn't read it before, three people were tortured. I don't think it fair to demonize the Bush administration for something used in so few cases, as well as something that was known about by members of congress, as well as the speaker of the house. They were complicit in this policy, so is it not their responsibility to bear also, not just the administration's?

[Mr. Happy]

You ARE a fucking fool if you think that torture is neccessary, and if you think only three people have been tortured.

[Sacul15]

Hypothetical situation:
Suppose you have captured a known terrorist. You know that he has information that could save lives. And suppose that torture is the only way to get it out of him (and I agree that in most cases torture is unnecessary, but for the sake of argument suppose this is true). Is it moral to do whatever you must to this person to get the information that will save lives? If you answer yes, then we can argue about the necessity of torture in interrogation, and whether or not waterboarding is torture. If you answer no, then frankly you are a coward and I have no interest in discussing the issue further.

[Jeeves]

As this is getting dangerously close to becoming a political flame war I sincerely apolgise for going moderately off topic I won't be the one who de-rails this thread. Some members of this forum, primarily Mr Jigsaw seem to be getting rather agrieved by this discussion, and my apparent use of the Bush administration as a scapegoat. I'll stop now before any lasting offence is caused.

And you should remember, in case you didn't read it before, three people were tortured.

All I can say to that is whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Just so you know, I don't care how many detainees were tortured. I don't care if they tortured 3 or 300. They deserved it.

And I wasn't responding to whether it was necessary, but acceptable. For that matter, calling your opponents fools gets you nowhere in an argument.

And what the hell does agrieved mean?

[BillyDa59]

Just so you know, I don't care how many detainees were tortured. I don't care if they tortured 3 or 300. They deserved it.

If you're gonna be arguing something, don't make yourself seem so extreme and hateful.

I think it's interesting how, in theory, these debates are suppose to come up with an answer to an issue but at the end of the day, when all is said and done. People still hold their views. Whether it's because their ideas of morality and just different or because they simply refuse to change view to save face, it amazes me how these always go nowhere. I suppose if anything else they help educate others on the issues. People who don't yet have an opinion. Another thing; I find it funny people go out of their way to use big words.